Jack Dempsey and The Color Line...

So what was his standing relative to the men who went before?

And I don't mean in the minds of oldtimers in the 50s - I mean how did oldtimers in his own time rate him? You know, seasoned reporters, trainers, fighters, etc. who had seen them all from Sullivan to Dempsey. Did they also think, he was the greatest heavyweight ever?

 

He was probably as highly regarded in his own time as anybody, though there was the usual bias towards the old timers. But I am not talking about their perceptions, or ours.

Let’s ask how many gloved heavyweight that went before him, we could theoretically rank over him. Sullivan, Jeffries, and Johnson obviously, if you like their work better. You could make a case for Langford or wills based on volume of work, but you probably wouldn’t.

So realistically, he was one of the four best gloved heavyweights who had ever been, even by the worst possible assessment.

 

I'm not sure it matters.
I don't see anyone making the argument that "he was number 1 ATG in 1920, so he's number 1 ATG until the end of time", only that he was GREAT and will remain so, simply because he was/is GREAT.
This isn't something peculiar to boxing or Dempsey, it's how things are in any field where "great ones" are being discussed.

Plenty of writers saw Dempsey up close in more fights than we can see shadowy youtube footage of, I'm sure. Not to mention followed him in training camp, saw him spar dozens and dozens of rounds and were equally familiar with his sparring partners, his opponents, their opponents, their sparring partners, etc, etc,
Boxing enthusiasts were no less enthusiastic then than they are now, nevermind the professional boxing writers and ringside gamblers. In fact, the opposite is perhaps true, they were more committed and enthusiastic, since the sport in those days revolved around a fan base who watched fights live at all levels, from grass roots club fights up to championships.

 

Very hard to determine a fighters skills via silient era film. I see the skills but I know boxing technically more than most.

Writers of the time would have ringside seat to watch Dempsey. Over and above this they would see him extensively in training before all bouts. Writers would also have access to the trainers and fighters who would be able to determine the greatness of the fighter. Hence Langford comments "Dempsey is the greatest fighter I have ever seen". A comment like that from another ATG fighter cannot be shortchanged.

 

No, let's not ask how many heavyweights before him WE could theoretically rank over him - let's ask how he was ACTUALLY rated by veteran fight people, who had seen all the heavyweight champions before him. THAT is what I'd like to know!

 

NO.

Research is what it is. A rehashing of OTHER people's work.

I find it very difficult to believe people are so fukking stupid, that they brag about being middle aged schoolkids. What they are basically admitting is they were so thick, they needed ANOTHER ten years of further education before they were good enough to go out into the world and earn a living.

I was born in 1947, and I paid CASH for my first house in 1966, because in those days you couldn't get a mortgage until you were 21 years old in England. I would have preferred to buy 2 or 3 houses, with mortgages, by just laying down deposits, but that was how it was.

I, like a lot of people from my background, was only interested in making money. We were not interested in leeching off our parents, and still going to " school " until we were 25 years old.

 

All this is good but I believe you shortchange the past. Boxing was a major sport at that time so the average fan knew who was who and what was what. The boxing writers of that era were way better writers then today's internet guys. If you peruse the newspapers of that time you will find loads and loads of boxing. They had way more newspapers in those days and all of the writers competed with each other to inform their readers. They had great writers, like Hype Igoe, Damon Runyan, Robert Edgren, and many others. All major cities had their own great writers covering boxing. In those days people read the papers. cos they had nothing else. Where do you think all the present day writers get most of their info. The only difference is present day writers add their bias', and filter their thoughts through todays perspective. Yes, I know a lot of the writers of that day were on the "payroll". Still they competed against to boast their papers circulation.

 

So.....in a better world Dempsey would have fought Wills but due to the times , not the fault of Dempsey or Wills, the fight didn't happened. The people in the know at the tme felt Dempsey was an ATG .However, now in retrospect based on many of the same people and blurry youtube clips we now know. ....

 

Oh please. That's ridiculous. You've got it all backwards.

Dempsey faced Gene Tunney twice. Gene Tunney proved in the ring he was better than Harry Greb. Greb wasn't one of Dempsey's "two greatest challengers."

Gene Tunney and Harry Wills were Dempsey's top challengers.

And at the end of Dempsey's reign Sharkey beat Wills. So Dempsey fought Sharkey, too.

Tunney was better than Greb (he proved it over and over and over again) and Sharkey (in 1926) was better than Wills.

There's no shame in fighting Tunney and Sharkey. Both became heavyweight champion of the world.

Also, Dempsey only won 10 decisions in his career, because he scored so many knockouts. And it was common practice for sportswriters (who, unless they were a syndicated columnist, were never highly paid) to get paid money by a boxer's manager or promoter to award "newspaper" decisions to fighters.

The sportwriters welcomed the extra money. They weren't officials. The decisions weren't official. So they took (and often expected) money for their newspaper verdict.

And the guys who went the distance a lot were the guys paying for decisions.

The fighters (like Dempsey) who knocked everyone out didn't have to pay for newspaper decisions. If you knocked guys out, you didn't have to bribe anyone. If you went the distance a lot (see guys like Greb and his close to 200 newspaper decisions) ... if you didn't pay some writer off your opponent would.

And more people read the paper than actually attended the fights.

 

Exactly.
There's no "new information" from what I've seen, just digging out old stuff.

 

So all the east coast writers building up Harry Wills and campaigning for him to get a title shot were writing what Rickard told them?
Yes, that's possible, and Rickard certainly benefitted from Wills being so highly regarded during those years when Dempsey was a Hollywood semi-retiree.

 

So the top writers who rated Dempsey extremely highly did not go to his fights and attend his training camps?

Dempsey, being in million dollar gate fights would not have been big news would he?
Every major newspaper had a sports writer, these guys would go to the training camps and wire daily reports and then be ringside for the fights.

You've seen Dempsey against Willard, Brennan,Firpo,Carpentier,Sharkey, Gibbons and Tunney,plus a brief clip against Miske and then not every round of those fights.

Do you think those boxing writers didn't?
Trains were laid on for these guys!
They weren't watching grainy, jumpy films, they were seeing the actual fights as they happened and from a few feet away! After being in camp, viewing them train.
These journalists were following Dempsey from his fight with GunBoat Smith!

This article concerning Dempsey winning the title states that the new champion had no worthy challenger to defend against ,and would await one to develop.So much for Wills in1919.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=2SkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4052,1944721&hl=en


God almighty you have got it bad haven't you?

" I come to bury Dempsey not to praise him"

How f*cking sad are you?:-(

 

It's utterly laughable the way Wills losing to Sharkey is held against him. He was 37, with 100+ fights behind him. Dempsey at 32 was losing to Sharkey too until he KO'd him with a cheap shot when Sharkey complained about being fouled. At age 37 Dempsey was getting beat up by King Levinsky.

Tunney did not prove he was better than Greb "over and over and over again". He beat Greb clearly twice. The rest were losses or close. Only three of their fights actually had an official decision rendered, since you have a problem with newspaper decisions. Those went 2-1 to Tunney, except one of those was widely regarded as a robbery. Even Tunney himself acknowledged that. Hardly proving his superiority over and over again.

Which of Dempsey's challengers was superior to Greb? Miske? Carpentier? Brennan? Gibbons? Firpo? Even Tunney is arguable at best.